February 15, 20241 yr 12 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said: That was an older study, but I'll try to find something more recent. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls
February 16, 20241 yr 8 hours ago, Toastrel said: Canada is 7th in guns per capita. Now it’s a huuuuge difference from us at 120 guns per 100 people to their 35 per 100 people. But it’s not like their aren’t any guns in Canada.
February 16, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, 20dawk4life said: Canada is 7th in guns per capita. Now it’s a huuuuge difference from us at 120 guns per 100 people to their 35 per 100 people. But it’s not like their aren’t any guns in Canada. The elephant in the room is race. Gun violence is overwhelmingly committed by whites, obviously. How many white people are in Canada? Hardly any, I would guess.
February 16, 20241 yr 14 hours ago, Gannan said: Over 130,000 people in the U.S were shot last year. Not a statistical anomaly. Mass shootings are the statistical anomaly. This is the mass shooting thread. 13 hours ago, Talkingbirds said: Was not expecting someone this age. IIRC the other suspects were juveniles or young adults. In criminal gangs it’s not out of the ordinary for there to be people his age around. They tend to prey on younger kids for membership by giving them a sort of structure and acceptance that they didn’t have before. 10 hours ago, DEagle7 said: Seems like a lot of kids targeted to be just gang violence collateral damage. Regardless of their motivations they seem much more like another "kill as many kids as possible" type of shooters. Gangs usually try to kill each other or get some secondary gain out of violence. Unfortunately we'll probably hear soon what their reasoning was one way or another. IMO their names, affiliations, manifestos etc etc should be withheld and they should rot in a cell in obscurity for the rest of their days. But alas that's not the world we live in. Yeah, criminal gang members don’t exactly practice their gun skills, so in a crowd there’s going to be a lot of bystanders hit. Even with cops, who have actual legal marksmanship standards to hit, on the whole really aren’t that good. When I last took the MPOETC quals I think you only needed to score around 75% to pass, and a hit on the B27 target still got you points during the drills.
February 16, 20241 yr On 2/15/2024 at 9:42 AM, MidMoFo said: At this point, and really before this latest national level incident, I think it would be wise for the extreme pro gun nutters to accept some more stringent background checks. The pendulum is going to swing, being unwilling to make any concessions at all will only cause the pendulum to swing further than you want it to. I’m saying this as a gun owner who would like to purchase again in the future. Pro gun enthusiasts used to embrace common sense gun laws. Now any restriction on gun ownership is considered not only an "attack" on the constitution, but an attack on an entire culture.
February 16, 20241 yr 20 hours ago, 20dawk4life said: Canada is 7th in guns per capita. Now it’s a huuuuge difference from us at 120 guns per 100 people to their 35 per 100 people. But it’s not like their aren’t any guns in Canada. Its culture. Canadian culture is far more pacifist
February 16, 20241 yr 2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Pro gun enthusiasts used to embrace common sense gun laws. Now any restriction on gun ownership is considered not only an "attack" on the constitution, but an attack on an entire culture. Bc they know the objective of the other side is not common sense, but an incremental creep to erode an enumerated constitutional right down to nothing. stop naively talking about common sense as if restrictions have a real positive intent
February 16, 20241 yr Commonsense says that it was already illegal for these juveniles to possess these guns. There were laws on the books to stop them. How the f is adding new laws going to stop them?
February 16, 20241 yr 32 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: Bc they know the objective of the other side is not common sense, but an incremental creep to erode an enumerated constitutional right down to nothing. stop naively talking about common sense as if restrictions have a real positive intent slippery slope fallacy. the needle has only moved one way the last 50 years, despite the whining about the mythical "erosion" of 2A
February 16, 20241 yr 15 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: slippery slope fallacy. the needle has only moved one way the last 50 years, despite the whining about the mythical "erosion" of 2A Quit kidding yourself. Brady bill alone shows you incorrect There are tons of restrictions made. Im glad many fail in the courts because they should.
February 16, 20241 yr Before I worked LE I worked armed security and had a known gang member who was a felon and a prohibited possessor of a gun take a pot shot at me and took off running. We eventually found him and the local PD came and arrested him. The local PD charged him with everything. Then the ADA dropped everything. Because he didn’t shoot at me, he shot AROUND me. And even though he didn’t have a concealed carry permit, he could have been theoretically open carrying the stolen handgun he was in possession of, even though he did not have any holster with which to carry a pistol openly in accordance with commonwealth law. And even though he was a prohibited possessor due to a FEDERAL felony, nobody called the local ATF office to let them know so they could charge him on that. So they dropped everything except for the receiving stolen property. Which they were pleading down to a misdeameanor. And then they released him on his own recognizance without bail. And then he didn’t show up to his next hearing. So yeah, don’t lecture me about needing more laws, because I’ve been through what’s on the books not being enforced. Oh and by the way he was later named as a suspect in a murder a few months after he was released. Fun times.
February 17, 20241 yr 2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: slippery slope fallacy. the needle has only moved one way the last 50 years, despite the whining about the mythical "erosion" of 2A this is weak
February 17, 20241 yr The proof is in the numbers. There are significantly more guns in circulation per capita now than 50 years ago. Despite all the supposed attacks on 2A. It seems preposterous to argue that more guns in circulation has had no effect on the increase in mass shootings, irrespective of whatever tortured definition we wrap that classification in. For certain there are other factors; not funding asylums to keep the mentally ill from being embedded in the general population is for sure one. That coupled with easy access to weapons is a recipe for significantly increasing the risk of rare but deadly incidents for some local communities.
February 17, 20241 yr 9 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: The proof is in the numbers. There are significantly more guns in circulation per capita now than 50 years ago. Despite all the supposed attacks on 2A. It seems preposterous to argue that more guns in circulation has had no effect on the increase in mass shootings, irrespective of whatever tortured definition we wrap that classification in. For certain there are other factors; not funding asylums to keep the mentally ill from being embedded in the general population is for sure one. That coupled with easy access to weapons is a recipe for significantly increasing the risk of rare but deadly incidents for some local communities. Access to weapons to actually harder now. A century ago a person could walk into a shop, pay cash for a fully auto BAR or a Thompson with no questions asked, and then walk out. How many people do you think kept guns in safes prior to now? Were trigger locks a thing back then? Never mind that the per capita gun ownership rate is the same now as it was decades ago.
February 17, 20241 yr 12 minutes ago, Bill said: Access to weapons to actually harder now. A century ago a person could walk into a shop, pay cash for a fully auto BAR or a Thompson with no questions asked, and then walk out. How many people do you think kept guns in safes prior to now? Were trigger locks a thing back then? Never mind that the per capita gun ownership rate is the same now as it was decades ago. 50 years =/= a century
February 17, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, Bill said: Access to weapons to actually harder now. A century ago a person could walk into a shop, pay cash for a fully auto BAR or a Thompson with no questions asked, and then walk out. How many people do you think kept guns in safes prior to now? Were trigger locks a thing back then? Never mind that the per capita gun ownership rate is the same now as it was decades ago. From what I've seen about 4x as many guns per 100k people are sold now vs 1960. Number of homes with guns has remained steady (though it spiked in 2022), but people with guns have a LOT more of them. My main issue is the culture there. Half the reason I think more guns are being sold is that not only gun ownership, but ownership of many guns with some quite capable of targeting mass amounts of people in a short time, is now a virtue signal. 100 years ago a Tommy gun cost over $200, which is about 7-8% of a person's annual salary at the time. An AR-15 can be picked up for less than $1k in 2024 dollars, which is less than 2% of an average salary now. Some can be had for $500, which is less than 1%. Access to weapons isn't just a question of regulations and gun control, but also economics. The average person can afford a lot more firepower now than 100 or 50 years ago.
February 17, 20241 yr 11 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: The proof is in the numbers. There are significantly more guns in circulation per capita now than 50 years ago. Despite all the supposed attacks on 2A. It seems preposterous to argue that more guns in circulation has had no effect on the increase in mass shootings, irrespective of whatever tortured definition we wrap that classification in. For certain there are other factors; not funding asylums to keep the mentally ill from being embedded in the general population is for sure one. That coupled with easy access to weapons is a recipe for significantly increasing the risk of rare but deadly incidents for some local communities. Correlation is not causation. You are being lazy in the data analysis bc you arent interested in considering you are wrong. Which is the core of logic
February 17, 20241 yr 5 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: Correlation is not causation Unless we're talking about the race of those who commit homicides with firearms. Then it's clearly causation, amirite?
February 17, 20241 yr 2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said: 50 years =/= a century No kidding. That’s why I was speaking to the 1920s and 1930s. You know, then the BAR and Thompson were popular.
February 17, 20241 yr 20 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Unless we're talking about the race of those who commit homicides with firearms. Then it's clearly causation, amirite? No, unless you want to correlate race being tied in with socio-economic disadvantages.
February 17, 20241 yr 10 minutes ago, Bill said: No kidding. That’s why I was speaking to the 1920s and 1930s. You know, then the BAR and Thompson were popular. Except the post you responded to was not.
February 17, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Bill said: No, unless you want to correlate race being tied in with socio-economic disadvantages. Good luck getting TJ to say the same.
Create an account or sign in to comment